Gore sets energy goal for next president to heed

Judged:

1

1

1

Daniel wrote:

Koz/Motorhead
How does 17%= 30%
maybe there is a reason for the clueless statement......

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>You can't finance a war ahead of time, it's true. But Bush's War is a war of choice, not a war of necessity, first of all.
But you weren't paying attention to the context of my post. I'm talking about taking action now to get serious about developing alternative, renewable energy sources. The poster I was replying to said since there are no shortages now, it's not a crisis yet, and we'll act when it is a crisis. I submit that when it becomes a crisis, it's going to be too late, because we won't have the energy resources to bootstrap ourselves up into any solutions. I dragged Bush's War in as just one more example of our "buy now, pay later" neo-con culture.

Judged:

1

1

1

democratic socialist wrote:

<quoted text>Those both happened before we sent all our engineering and technological expertise overseas.

Daniel wrote:

<quoted text>
I have wasted far to much time talking to people like you.

MOST of the scientist in the world agree that humans are helping it along.

upwithbiofuels wrote:

<quoted text>
Through gasification just about everything that is refined out of crude can be produced from organic biomass. The processes now work but everyone will agree are still primitive but the technology is successful. A plant will start producing ethanol from forest wastes next year in Georgia. Thats just a few months away. So we can produce a fuel from the wastes of the timber industry. In Brazil they produce ethanol from not only the sugar in sugar cane but also the cane in sugar cane. This can be done in the US too in places like Florida, south Georgia, south Alabama, south Miss. and on across to the dessert starts in west Texas. There is a lot of research going on right now to prodce BIOFUELS in other ways like ethanol from algae. One group is already making biogasoline. The industry will become more efficient as it matures just like any other industry. For example, cars have been manufactured for many decades now but that industry is still improving and cars are getting better. They need to get better at fuel conservation but thats another topic.

Judged:

1

1

1

M Blackburn wrote:

<quoted text>
That's the bone of contention. If you talk to scientist you don't get the same level of confirmation that you get from the IPCC and warming advocates.

Judged:

1

1

Daniel wrote:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warre n-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-s hare/
"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."
"And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."
WOW, even warren says it... yet you still defend the rich. trying to say 17% somehow equals 30%...... go obama. we need better math classes.

Judged:

1

1

1

Daniel wrote:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warre n-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-s hare/
"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."

Daniel wrote:

http://freakonomics.blogs.nyti mes.com/2008/05/01/taxes-warre n-buffett-and-paying-my-fair-s hare/
"Well, let’s start with the ultra-rich. Bajillionaire Warren Buffett has argued that he isn’t being asked to pay his share. He went around his office, asking people what share of their income they pay in income taxes. Buffett’s 17.7 percent tax rate compared a bit too favorably with the 30 percent tax rate paid by his secretary."
"And Buffett went a step further, putting his money where his mouth is. Last November he issued a challenge to his fellow billionaires:
I’ll bet a million dollars against any member of the Forbes 400 who challenges me that the average (federal tax rate including income and payroll taxes) for the Forbes 400 will be less than the average of their receptionists."
WOW, even warren says it... yet you still defend the rich. trying to say 17% somehow equals 30%...... go obama. we need better math classes.

Judged:

1

1

1

My Sentiments wrote:

<quoted text>
you want equality in the tax system......www.fairtax.org
It doesn't get any more even that that! Income is irrelevant, base it on comsumption!

Judged:

1

1

1

Delphinus 13 wrote:

<quoted text>
Well then, abolish the INCOME tax and enact a consumption tax. THis way, those people who consume more will pay more.

Judged:

1

1

1

tina anne wrote:

<quoted text>
The problem is getting the organic biomass without harming the enviroment. So far I have heard of several schemes from raising algee in the middle of a desert to using wood pulp (There is a sawdust shortage currently in progress), to using marginal land for raising this or that. All of which will only make things worse for the enviroment.

Judged:

1

1

1

Hot Air wrote:

Gore is a m-o-r-o-n.

Judged:

1

1

1

Daniel wrote:

ok ya 2 explain this. 17% of warrens income goes to taxes. yet his workers will pay 30% of their income in taxes..... still not understanding?
Sure he pays more total. he also makes more total.... but you still can't explain the percentage of income... plain and simple. even he is saying that he isn't paying his fair share.